If you have been led to believe that Hammer and Scorecard were used to steal the election for Joe Biden, I regret to inform you that claim is suspect. This does not mean I am siding with RINOS like Romney and Barr, who deny that there was any fraud. That too is false. Donald Trump was robbed, he did not lose the election.
So far, there is significant circumstantial evidence of unusual amounts of internet traffic between foreign locations and the United States. But we do not have any tangible, verifiable evidence showing votes being switched via a command or intervention from a foreign server. Investigations continue to ferret out what happened and these efforts may produce such proof. What we do know with certainty is that there were unusually large numbers of adjudicated ballots in a few key counties, that there was ballot stuffing, that counterfeit ballots were counted and that the Dominion voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan failed to accurately record the actual number of votes for Donald Trump.
This brings me to the Mary Fanning segment in the Michael Lindell produced video, ABSOLUTE PROOF. Mary Fanning claims to have evidence that foreign servers, including locations in China and Iran, were changing vote totals in specific counties. Unfortunately, she has not published any of this alleged evidence. You just have to trust her. But I dug into the information she is relying on and learned that her source is Dennis Montgomery.
Montgomery has a checkered past:
Montgomery’s software claims were reportedly responsible for a false terror alert which grounded international flights and caused Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to raise the government’s security level. In February 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Air Force office of Special Investigations opened an economic espionage and theft of intellectual property investigation into Montgomery and Blxware.
In court papers filed in Los Angeles, a former lawyer for Montgomery calls the software designer a “habitual liar engaged in fraud.” Last June Montgomery was charged in Las Vegas with bouncing nine checks (totaling $1 million) in September 2008 and was arrested on a felony warrant in Rancho Mirage, California. That million is only a portion of what he lost to five casinos in Nevada and California in just one year. That’s according to his federal bankruptcy filing, where he reported personal debts of $12 million. The FBI has investigated him, and some of his own co-workers say he staged phony demonstrations of military technology for the U.S. government.
According to Mary Fanning:
The HAMMER has been a tool of foreign surveillance until February 2009, at which time Brennan and Clapper commandeered it and turned it against America by transforming the Hammer into an illegal domestic surveillance tool. . . .
One of THE HAMMER’s applications, an election cyberwarefare weapon known as SCORECARD.
But Fanning is wrong. The real domestic surveillance tool was revealed in the summer of 2013 by Edward Snowden. NSA developed a massive array of domestic surveillance tools and it was used on Americans well before 2009. One of the most alarming is called XKEYSCORE. Snowden describes it at length in his autobiography:
“The program that enabled this access was called XKEYSCORE, which is perhaps best understood as a search engine that lets an analyst search through all the records of your life. Imagine a kind of Google that instead of showing pages from the public Internet returns results from your private email, your private chats, your private files, everything. Though I’d read enough about the program to understand how it worked, I hadn’t yet used it, and I realized I ought to know more about it. By pursuing XKEYSCORE, I was looking for a personal confirmation of the depths of the NSA’s surveillance intrusions—the kind of confirmation you don’t get from documents but only from direct experience.”
“The NSA described XKEYSCORE, in the documents I’d later pass on to journalists, as its “widest-ranging” tool, used to search “nearly everything a user does on the Internet.” The technical specs I studied went into more detail as to how exactly this was accomplished—by “packetizing” and “sessionizing,” or cutting up the data of a user’s online sessions into manageable packets for analysis—but nothing could prepare me for seeing it in action.
It was, simply put, the closest thing to science fiction I’ve ever seen in science fact: an interface that allows you to type in pretty much anyone’s address, telephone number, or IP address, and then basically go through the recent history of their online activity. In some cases you could even play back recordings of their online sessions, so that the screen you’d be looking at was their screen, whatever was on their desktop. You could read their emails, their browser history, their search history, their social media postings, everything. You could set up notifications that would pop up when some person or some device you were interested in became active on the Internet for the day. And you could look through the packets of Internet data to see a person’s search queries appear letter by letter, since so many sites transmitted each character as it was typed. It was like watching an autocomplete, as letters and words flashed across the screen. ”
Excerpt From: Edward Snowden. “Permanent Record.” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/permanent-record/id1475055562
But this fact has not deterred Fanning from crediting Montgomery as being the whistleblower who revealed this dark secret. Montgomery did no such thing. That credit (or blame, depending on your point of view) rests with Edward Snowden.
Which brings me back to Mary Fanning’s information in the Mike Lindell video. Here is the image of Fanning’s data:
This appears quite impressive and, if true, damning. How was this obtained? I cannot think of a legal way such intelligence could be obtained by a private citizen. Was it leaked by someone in the NSA? Did Dennis grab it using classified tools he is not legally entitled to possess? Was this provided by someone tied to a foreign government intelligence service? Or, is it fabricated?
I certainly understand why Mike Lindell could be taken in by this kind of material. It is alluring. But to establish this as evidence we need some very specific questions answered:
- How was it collected? It appears a node that only the NSA or CIA has was employed to capture and identify activities specifically targeting county election centers across the United States. I am not aware of any private company with the capability to collect and sort this kind of data without access to a classified system.
- Were the people producing this information using SCORECARD? If so, that is another redflag. It was collected illegally and CANNOT be used as evidence in a court case. This is a very important point. For evidence to be admissible in either a civil or criminal action, you must show chain of custody and must be able to defend against any challenge that the information was obtained outside legal channels.
- Why are the Date/Time groups not in chronological order?
- Why hasn’t the data been sorted by State and County? As I noted in my previous post, if you are going to argue that specific votes in specific counties and precincts were changed electronically, then any analyst worth their salt would aggregate the data by State and County. Thanks to the great work by Michigan lawyer DePerno, we have the numbers for Antrim. If Mary Fanning’s data is sound, it should confirm what DePerno found. That has not happened. At least not to my knowledge (and I know someone who spoke with DePerno today and he has seen no such data).
The key to beating the lie that there was no election fraud is evidence–documentary, electronic and eye witness. The fact that Dennis Montgomery, according to Mary Fanning, is at the heart of this worries me.
Some of the Gateway Pundit community is quite upset with me for pointing out some not so obvious flaws and shortcomings in Mike Lindell’s recent video, ABSOLUTE PROOF. I have written repeatedly that I believe firmly that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. But this has to be proven with evidence that will stand up in court. That is why I am raising legitimate questions and concerns about Mary Fanning’s contribution to the Mike Lindell project. If you promise, Absolute Proof, then you better deliver absolute proof.
I decided to ask Yaacov Apelbaum for help in assessing the Mary Fanning data. Yaacov Apelbaum, CEO of XRVISION, is well known to regular readers of TGP having played a critical role in exposing frauds, identifying terrorists and uncovering key data from the Hunter Biden laptop.
Here is what Yaacov observed:
- The data is not sorted. That would be virtually impossible for any select output statement that created the file.
- Many of the IP addresses do not match the source and target locations specified.
- Some of the company/entity names don’t match the location specified.
- The document uses DBA names for companies instead of the actual legal name, which is what you would get if you did an actual IP-> organization resolution.
- All of the destinations are protected with firewalls, so, the “INTRUSION METHOD” referencing the word “FIREWALL” is meaningless. Also, from the limited attack vocabulary it obvious that whoever wrote this is not familiar with actual cyber offensive operations.
- Source date format is incomplete and is missing the time zone
- Some of the records are incomplete, for example row 24 states that “TRUMP: DOWN 44,905”, but failed to add the “Y” entry under the “SUCCESS” column
- The tabs on the spreadsheet show that the titles were created manually (“Sheet 1” vs. “Sheet1”), which is unlikely if this date came from an automated process
- The values in the field titled “TARGET ID”, which have the format of a MAC address, were most likely created with a random number generator. A sampling of some of these numbers yielded no results
Sampling of inconsistencies:
Image 1: One of the sources for the alleged attack, an entity called “SHENZHEN SUNRISE TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD. 200”, is a Hong Kong based company, but, it shows up with 157 different IP address different ranges in the Beijing area.
Image 2: “LA PAZ COUNTY CELECTIONS” shows up in two different states with two different IP addresses
I am not trying to harm nor divert attention away from proving the fraud in the 2020 election. I want to make sure we have the right information in order to make the strongest, most persuasive case. We cannot afford to rely on unreliable information.